The whole Gaza/Israel thread (not even going to attempt to type Ahdamenajed's name--oops, there it is--as I have no idea how to spell it), brings to mind for me the differences between polytheism and monotheism.
It has been jokingly asked in that thread, "Can't we all just get along?" Also suggested in that thread is that both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are in the wrong. I do tend to agree with this, although my responses in that thread might lead people to believe otherwise.
To me it seems that the religious ideology of both sides is a large part of the problem. The hardcore Jews are often disparaged as Zionists while the fanatical Muslims are disparaged as Jihadists. Both terms are probably inaccurate in many cases, but where they do hit the mark, the individuals or groups that they apply to seem to me to have a very black-and-white, uncompromising, hierarchical view of society fueled by a deep monotheistic religious conviction. What I am saying is that "Zionists" believe that the Holy Land was given to them by their G-d and that they have the sacred right to defend it at all costs, and "Jihadists" believe that Allah has charged them with religious expansion and also given them the Holy Land. Given this, the perpetual conflict comes as no surprise.
I find it impossible to envision these two (or any) hard-line monotheistic societies taking the "live and let live," "can't we all just get along?" approach. Adamant monotheists not only believe that they have a divine mandate supporting their existence, but they take it to a level that denies any other faith legitimacy. So we have the idea that "the Arabs want to push Israel into the sea," and the equally hard-line approach of Israel aggressively staking out its claim to the Holy Land. Seems like the only workable solution is to have multiple Holy Lands.
Which is exactly what a polytheistic, "animistic," or "pagan" approach to the world does. Every place is sacred and imbued with divinity. Nature is everywhere alive. Through the virtue of being alive, nature is respected and approached in the spirit of relationship, not aggression. This approach can and should also be extended to other groups of people, other cultures.
I don't know. This is just a note about the viability and sanity of polytheism as opposed to the centuries of conflict that is the legacy of any brand of monotheism.
Flame away!
No flaming here, I just wish to mention that I feel this is a very narrow minded view of both the conflict in the region, which is more about money and power and less about religion then most wish to mention, and a very narrow minded approach to monotheism in general and both Judaism and Islam.
It had been mentioned in the other thread that a substantial part of the conflict, which is not addressed in the media, is religious in nature. This got me thinking along the lines of the OP. Please do note that in that post I am not trying to lump all Jews/Muslims/Christians etc into the category of being fundamentalist zealots, but I do think that the suggestion that conflicts are driven by zeal and uncompromising ideologies is a fair one worth considering.
Crimson Jester, you seem to have an admirable approach to these kinds of conflicts, not tending to align yourself with any particular ideology or side. Please feel free to expand on your comment quoted above. I am especially interested in your suggestion that the conflict has much to do with money and power.
|
I think the conflict in Israel and Palestine has so many layers to it, that it is difficult to give just one reason for it. On one level, it is a religious conflict. On another, it is cultural or ethnic. The Palestinians are "native" to the area, while a good portion of the Israeli population (if not most of the Israeli population) are "immigrants". Now, I know that they are descendants of the Jewish Diaspora, and are essentially going back to their "ancestral" land. In any event, arguing who was there first is basically immaterial, as both groups are, if you go back far enough, nearly the same ethnicity. Their languages are very similar, and their religions are very similar. (There are big differences between Islam and Judaism, but they are incredibly closely related).
I always have thought that monotheism lends itself particularly well to religious conflict due to its exclusive rather than inclusive nature, but I also believe that most, if not all, religious wars simply use religion as a powerful excuse to accomplish other goals. To trot out an obvious and possibly overused example, the Crusades were concocted primarily to stop the various European monarchs from fighting each other, by giving them an obvious external enemy they could all share. In Palestine, both groups use religious rhetoric to justify their continued ownership of a piece of land.
Now, I tend to side a little bit more with the Palestinians in the conflict, and I deeply dislike how Israel conducts itself and imposes itself on the massive refugee population living within its borders, but I don't condone the actions of groups such as Hamas. I also believe that the best way to solve it is to put pressure on Israel to change their conduct in this civil war. The strong-arm tactics Israel has used for the last 50 years have had no positive effect whatsoever. When you bomb civilian areas within your own borders, you tend to make civilians angry. Angry civilians quickly become rebels, especially if they are an already marginalized population. Again, I don't condone the acts of Hamas, but I also think that almost all of what Israel does in response is counterproductive.
There's my 2cp, and I hope I haven't insulted anyone.
What?! Are you suggestion His Noodly Goodness is responsible for the unrest in the Middle East?!
Psha!
Poor form, old man, poor form. Stale beer for you!
Poor form, old man, poor form. Stale beer for you!
Oooh! Stale beer! I love stale beer! YAY!!!
Oooh! Stale beer! I love stale beer! YAY!!!
Yeah? Well no strippers for you either!
Anyone recall the old Star Trek episode in which two aliens hated each other and wanted to kill each other: they were each half black / half white, but one was black on the LEFT, white on the RIGHT, while the other was black on the RIGHT, white on the LEFT. Of course, to everyone else they looked exactly the same at first glance, and thought the whole point of the conflict was silly. Just saying...
Just saying...
Ayup.
The whole Gaza/Israel thread (not even going to attempt to type Ahdamenajed's name--oops, there it is--as I have no idea how to spell it), brings to mind for me the differences between polytheism and monotheism.
To me it seems that the religious ideology of both sides is a large part of the problem. The hardcore Jews are often disparaged as Zionists while the fanatical Muslims are disparaged as Jihadists. What I am saying is that "Zionists" believe that the Holy Land was given to them by their G-d and that they have the sacred right to defend it at all costs, and "Jihadists" believe that Allah has charged them with religious expansion and also given them the Holy Land.
Couple of comments:
1)I don't think you meant any offense, but I would be careful about using the term 'hardcore Jews.' I would say it's at least mildly inflammatory.
2)Many extremely devout Jews opposed the creation of a secular Jewish state, and so far as I know some still oppose the existence of a Jewish state. I am not an expert on Judaism, but my understanding is that their religious texts indicate that the Jewish homeland will/should not be established until the coming of the messiah. A popular movie which touched on this was 'The Chosen.'
Is 'hardcore human' o.k.?
|
To me it seems that the religious ideology of both sides is a large part of the problem. The hardcore Jews are often disparaged as Zionists while the fanatical Muslims are disparaged as Jihadists. Both terms are probably inaccurate in many cases, but where they do hit the mark, the individuals or groups that they apply to seem to me to have a very black-and-white, uncompromising, hierarchical view of society fueled by a deep monotheistic religious conviction. What I am saying is that "Zionists" believe that the Holy Land was given to them by their G-d and that they have the sacred right to defend it at all costs, and "Jihadists" believe that Allah has charged them with religious expansion and also given them the Holy Land. Given this, the perpetual conflict comes as no surprise.
Zionists believe in a Jewish state because of 1,900 years of oppression of opportunity in Europe.
They believe in it being where it is because of historical connections.While there are observant Jews who are zionists there are just as many who non-observant or overtly secular.
There is a group of strongly observant Jews who are zionists who have views somewhat like that, but there are equally strongly observant Jews who are not zionists, and others who are actively anti-zionist.
To try and pin zionism down the way you have shows a near total ignorance of zionism and its interaction with Judaism.
As for jihadis, even "moderate" Muslims are expected to wage jihad in one manner or other (of the heart, head, or hand), so it is difficult to conceive of calling it a disparaging term. That particular groups wage their jihad with terrorism in no way explains the stated preferences of other Muslims for a world state based on Sharia, with its requirements that all non-Muslims submit as dhimmis. Basic polls reveal just how many Muslims feel that way, and raise significant concerns for those who pay attention to them.
The rest comes down to the typical "brainstorming" from ignorance of the actual facts. If you do casually ignore those then certainly you can come up with almost any sort of "solution". That it is has no relevance to the reality of the situation is another issues, and raises questions as to why someone would want to promote a "solution" bound to be rejected.
We seem to have hit a nerve.
|
No flaming here, I just wish to mention that I feel this is a very narrow minded view of both the conflict in the region, which is more about money and power and less about religion then most wish to mention, and a very narrow minded approach to monotheism in general and both Judaism and Islam.It had been mentioned in the other thread that a substantial part of the conflict, which is not addressed in the media, is religious in nature. This got me thinking along the lines of the OP. Please do note that in that post I am not trying to lump all Jews/Muslims/Christians etc into the category of being fundamentalist zealots, but I do think that the suggestion that conflicts are driven by zeal and uncompromising ideologies is a fair one worth considering.
Crimson Jester, you seem to have an admirable approach to these kinds of conflicts, not tending to align yourself with any particular ideology or side. Please feel free to expand on your comment quoted above. I am especially interested in your suggestion that the conflict has much to do with money and power.
Please understand that I am trying a diplomatic approach to this issue, and I have very strong opinions but I don not feel right forcing those opinions on others.
Lets take a look see at the troubles...
The region has always (since antiquity) been a region of conflict since it is apart of a natural land bridge and allows for trade or conquest through its borders.
It was part of British imperialism and was opened to Zionism back in the 1890's mainly due to racism since many wanted the Jews out of Europe.
So the people who could afford to move did. (read wealthy) and who was living there at the time? Well people who were not wealthy who sold thier homes and moved.
This led to revolts in what 1939 which is really the first of several conflicts caused by one group having money and resources and another not.
Now you add to this what I like to call white guy guilt, following the Holocaust. and you get the makings of a powder keg. this is not even going to the religious issues where you have multiple groups not just claiming religious rights to the same pieces of land but historical ones as well. You have groups denying archaeological evidence that one or another group was in an area in the past because it goes against their claim to the same mile and a half of land.
Shoot forward to today. Any time anyone has offered to concede a bit for piece someone on their own side either tries to or succeeds in killing them and thus preventing a lasting resolution. Israel is building a wall to allow greater security to their neighborhoods and homes. Walls that by side effect prevent People who live on the otherside from even going to their own jobs easily. making grocery shopping hard making life, well it makes Palestinian ghettos really. Any person who is forced to live in those conditions will fight back. In the US people got(get) out of those situations in various means, the military, jobs, education, sports ect.. In Palestine...you don't have the same options. And if you feel you have no option, none for your family none for your people and you look across a fence and see another child who does. Its a classic case of the haves and the have nots and Our (American) involvement has honestly made things worse. the way I see it, if you have a problem with a bully do you want someone else to take care of the issue, or do you want to show you can take care of it yourself. Both sides see the other side as the local bully in my mind, which just seems to make things worse.
Onto the religious side of things I just cant go with the everything is Sacred
well as it was said in the Incredibles...if everyone is special, no one is.
Actually, religion has very little to do with it. If you want to understand the conflict, you can't rely on the current imagery generated by main-stream media; you must look at it's historical development.
Historically, many major leaders of Palestinian resistance movements have been Christian or Atheist Communists, and in any case religion played little role in motivation: The issues were self-determination, one person-one vote, anti-colonialism and resistance to ethnic cleansing. Even Hamas, which IS a group with religious motivations, acknowledges that the Palestinian cause is not dependent on a sectarian perspective.
Likewise, Zionism has little to do with real religion: Some have called it's pseuodo-ethnic nationalism (ala "Aryanism") a "modern" religious SUBSTITUTE. The Orthodox Jewish community of Palestine (and indeed, the majority of world Jewish opinion at the time) was AGAINST establishing an ethnic jewish state. To gain the consent of the religious Jews, the Zionists allowed them a role as a Theocratic Judiciary, and certain strains of "religious" Jews have progressively become more aligned with Zionism, but it is not a clear-cut relationship.
Equally, Zionists are glad to count as allies anti-Semitic Christian (US/European) and Muslim kooks (of Egyptian & Saudi regimes) because they cooperate with the Zionists; Meanwhile, dissenting Jews who question Zionism are flatly labelled "self hating". Although there is an increasing Theocratic trend within Israel, distinct from the pseudo-ethno-nationalist mainstream ideology, Israel remains dependent on the latter: Masses of Russians/Ukrainians of questionable "Jewishness" (certainly non-religious) are accepted as citizens because they are willing to ally against the "other", i.e. Palestinians/ the non-Jew.
From the start, Zionism pondered disposing of the "unwanted populace" on the land it wanted. An alternative was to retain them as second-class serfs, ala South Africa (and the predominantly Muslim peasantry of Palestine was seen as more quiescent and promising in that role than the more organized and urbanized Christians). Interestingly, even Ben-Gurion (founding leader of Israel) acknowledged that the indigenous population was just as much descendants of the ancient Jews as the "Jewish" settlers: They had simply exercised their religious freedom to convert hundreds or thousands of years ago. An interesting book by an Israeli/Jewish historian, actually explores the history of Jewish CONVERSIONS of foreign peoples in the Caucasus (Ashkenazi), Yemen & North Africa - These being the peoples who have now claimed the "right" to exclusive domain over the land of Palestine.
To counter the dominant narrative Israel sells, here are the first usages of terrorist acts in Palestine:
(Israeli jets forced down civilian Syrian aircraft en route to Cairo to hold passengers hostage as bargaining chips.)
Back to the main topic, it may not be common knowledge that Israel actually fostered the development of Hamas during the 80s, as a group focusing on religious aims, to counter the then-dominant (as resistance faction) PLO, similar to how Iranian religious fundamentalists were tolerated by the Shah's regime, which focused on suppressing leftist movements. Of course, NOW Israel seeks to use Dahlan and the now-completely-illegitimate Abu Mazen as their Bantustan Over-seers.
If you're reading this, you're probably live in the USA or Great Britain (or Canada), all countries which have massively supported Israel from the very start with aid & military arms. That means you CAN stand up to insist that military support of Israel STOP and comprehensive sanctions be applied, as "the West" FINALLY applied to South Africa (big ally of Israel) after decades of building world-wide opposition. Too often people feel like it's controversial to stand up, but that is the point: to make people scared that they will look bad, look like "Anti-Semites" (though massacres of Arabs is A-OK), that somehow THEY PERSONALLY are guilty for the German genocide of Jews (and thus that excuses Israel). If enough "moderate" people do NOT stand up to prevent wholesale human rights violations in the name of a "Chosen People", that just gives all the more legitimacy to ANYONE who DOES stand up against it, regardless if their extreme agenda could be just as bad.
I'd like a fresh beer please, and bring back the strippers.
It has been jokingly asked in that thread, "Can't we all just get along?"How do you know I was joking?
Look at you.
I'd like a fresh beer please, and bring back the strippers.
*Cracks a beer, passes one over.*
This is better than strippers dude, and it's just getting good.
|
A fanatic belief in any thing will result in violence. Just look at the 3.5 v 4e issue, if some of the 3.5 supporters knew where the 4e supporters lived and vice versa and owned guns there would be murder. Involve "God" and you get the beginnings of genocide. A fanatical Belief that past injustices should be avenged, you get endless war. Until Israel and the Palestinians lay their beliefs aside there will never be peace. Nether side will ever give up their belief in their "God" and the belief that they are right, so they are doomed. If they are doomed then let them die, the world will be better for it. They are lost and we should turn our back to them as we turn our backs to a unrepentant drug addict.
|
|
A fanatic belief in any thing will result in violence. Just look at the 3.5 v 4e issue, if some of the 3.5 supporters knew where the 4e supporters lived and vice versa and owned guns there would be murder. Involve "God" and you get the beginnings of genocide. A fanatical Belief that past injustices should be avenged, you get endless war. Until Israel and the Palestinians lay their beliefs aside there will never be peace. Nether side will ever give up their belief in their "God" and the belief that they are right, so they are doomed. If they are doomed then let them die, the world will be better for it. They are lost and we should turn our back to them as we turn our backs to a unrepentant drug addict.
Wow I so disagree, if we don't at least try to help them see reason, then we are as guilty as if we placed the guns in their hands ourselves. In truth our governments probably sold many of the guns in the first place which does make us culpable.
A belief in G~d does not in and of itself mean that someone is or will be a fanatic. Many very intelligent and capable people are deeply spiritual and or Religious.
After being burnt so many times offering help just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..
Is that the cluster bomb kind of help? Or the phosphorus bomb kind?
In truth our governments probably sold many of the guns in the first place which does make us culpable.
PROBABLY? Those phosphorus bombs airbursting over neighborhoods and burning up hospitals are made in the U-S-A, along with MOST of the Israeli arsenal, though their tanks are made with German help - and this is hardly 'sold' in a neutral arms-dealer sense, given the massive military 'aid' the US gives to Israel to maintain their 'superiority'. (Their UAVs and missiles were developed themselves in cooperation with Apartheid South Africa.) American bombers "unofficially" flown over from the US turned the tide of Israel's "founding war", and the US has a curious habit of sending container ships of weaponry to Israel IN THE MIDDLE of conflicts that we feign horror at the "human cost" of. "Sort of" culpable, IMHO.
If Israel was cut off and put under arms & trade embargoes like South Africa, there is no way it can sustain it's position.
|
|
After being burnt so many times offering help it just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..
We all have choices, our choices are to do what we have been doing which will get us what we have now, more crap.
We can choose to do nothing and watch the world go to hell.
Or we can choose to try. We may not succeed but I for one would rather try and fail then to go on with things the way they are now.
Maybe it is my faith that lets me keep trying.
|
|
After being burnt so many times offering help just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..Is that the cluster bomb kind of help? Or the phosphorus bomb kind?
In truth our governments probably sold many of the guns in the first place which does make us culpable.PROBABLY? Those phosphorus bombs airbursting over neighborhoods and burning up hospitals are made in the U-S-A, along with MOST of the Israeli arsenal, though their tanks are made with German help (along with nuclear missile subs), and their UAVs and missiles were developed themselves in cooperation with Apartheid South Africa. American bombers "unofficially" flown over from the US turned the tide of Israel's "founding war", and the US has a curious habit of sending container ships of weaponry to Israel IN THE MIDDLE of conflicts that we feign horror at the "human cost" of. "Sort of" culpable, IMHO.
If you give someone a cigarette and they get cancer and die are you responsible? No the person you gave the cigarette to decided to smoke and therefore all the blame for his cancer is his. You can sell all the weapons you want to whoever you want and you will have no culpability for the actions the buyers use them for because it is the buyers choice to use them.
After being burnt so many times offering help just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..Is that the cluster bomb kind of help? Or the phosphorus bomb kind?
In truth our governments probably sold many of the guns in the first place which does make us culpable.PROBABLY? Those phosphorus bombs airbursting over neighborhoods and burning up hospitals are made in the U-S-A, along with MOST of the Israeli arsenal, though their tanks are made with German help (along with nuclear missile subs), and their UAVs and missiles were developed themselves in cooperation with Apartheid South Africa. American bombers "unofficially" flown over from the US turned the tide of Israel's "founding war", and the US has a curious habit of sending container ships of weaponry to Israel IN THE MIDDLE of conflicts that we feign horror at the "human cost" of. "Sort of" culpable, IMHO.
Thanks, Quandary and Crimson Jester. I'm glad to see both of your posts.
-PeaceLVR
You can sell all the weapons you want to whoever you want and you will have no culpability for the actions the buyers use them for because it is the buyers choice to use them.
They are not 'sold' for the most part, since the US funds the Israeli Occupation Force budget, and the US cooperates with Israel in aiming to keep Palestinians as defenseless as possible. The only exception (recently) is training Dahlan gangs to maintain order for their Israeli masters, which is hardly an exception, it's just following the Apartheid South African strategy.
|
|
After being burnt so many times offering help it just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..We all have choices, our choices are to do what we have been doing which will get us what we have now, more crap.
We can choose to do nothing and watch the world go to hell.
Or we can choose to try. We may not succeed but I for one would rather try and fail then to go on with things the way they are now.
Maybe it is my faith that lets me keep trying.
That is the main difference between us you have faith that both side of the conflict can be reasoned with and they can change their ways and make up and be friends. I on the other hand have faith that both sides are in a blood feud that will never end until they are all dead or a greater force subjugates them and forces peace upon them.
|
|
That is the main difference between us you have faith that both side of the conflict can be reasoned with and they can change their ways and make up and be friends. I on the other hand have faith that both sides are in a blood feud that will never end until they are all dead or a greater force subjugates them and forces peace upon them.After being burnt so many times offering help it just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..We all have choices, our choices are to do what we have been doing which will get us what we have now, more crap.
We can choose to do nothing and watch the world go to hell.
Or we can choose to try. We may not succeed but I for one would rather try and fail then to go on with things the way they are now.
Maybe it is my faith that lets me keep trying.
The Russians had the same idea that you could force peace on someone. You can see how good that lasted in Yugoslavia when it broke up.
I on the other hand have faith that both sides are in a blood feud that will never end until they are all dead or a greater force subjugates them and forces peace upon them.
If their ammo and economy runs out, the Zionists would certainly find themselves at pains to continue their war indefinitely. Certainly, they have nuclear bombs and are probably more fanatical than the South African regime. But if Americans' taxes (and rich Zionists' money) isn't flowing to them anymore, alot of Israelis would just leave. Certainly alot of Russians moved there simply because it was economically better off than Russia, and the Israelis were happy to accept any (whites) willing to go along with a half-assed Jewish background story (and join the army). Postponing the end of the Jewish state with US funds is merely the most brutal option in terms of both Jewish and non-Jewish lives.
|
|
If you give someone a cigarette and they get cancer and die are you responsible? No the person you gave the cigarette to decided to smoke and therefore all the blame for his cancer is his. You can sell all the weapons you want to whoever you want and you will have no culpability for the actions the buyers use them for because it is the buyers choice to use them.After being burnt so many times offering help just seems like self flagellation, it makes us feel good but doesn’t do a bit of good for them and then they resent us for it.
It dosn't matter who gave them guns it was their choice to use them..Is that the cluster bomb kind of help? Or the phosphorus bomb kind?
In truth our governments probably sold many of the guns in the first place which does make us culpable.PROBABLY? Those phosphorus bombs airbursting over neighborhoods and burning up hospitals are made in the U-S-A, along with MOST of the Israeli arsenal, though their tanks are made with German help (along with nuclear missile subs), and their UAVs and missiles were developed themselves in cooperation with Apartheid South Africa. American bombers "unofficially" flown over from the US turned the tide of Israel's "founding war", and the US has a curious habit of sending container ships of weaponry to Israel IN THE MIDDLE of conflicts that we feign horror at the "human cost" of. "Sort of" culpable, IMHO.
No, but if you sell them a cigarette and tell them that it is not dangerous and add ingredients to said cigarettes to make them more addictive and set up your advertising to make kids want to smoke and sell them "candy cigarettes" then when most of your customers die from cancer then yes you are responsible especially when most of them try to quit but find that they are addicted and unable to do so. If you farm tobacco instead of corn even though you can make enough money with the corn to get through the season then yes you too are at fault.
Circular logic does not prevail and please stick with the subject at hand.
|
|
It was part of British imperialism and was opened to Zionism back in the 1890's mainly due to racism since many wanted the Jews out of Europe.
The British Mandate in Palestine did not begin until 1920.
The First Aliyah began in 1883, and was primarily Russian Jews fleeing racism.So the people who could afford to move did. (read wealthy) and who was living there at the time? Well people who were not wealthy who sold thier homes and moved.
The Russian Jews were not even dirt poor at the time. That was one reason that had no issues with leaving Russia.
Their passage and lands were paid for by other Jews, which did include ultra-wealthy families like the Rothschilds, of Western Europe and the U.S. Indeed this even led to a Jewish joke that zionism was one Jew asking a second Jew for money to send a third Jew to the land of Israel. (It helps to be Jewish to get it.)This led to revolts in what 1939 which is really the first of several conflicts caused by one group having money and resources and another not.
The first riots were in 1920. They were driven by a combination of political aspirations, including nascent pan-Arabism, and religious incitement.
|
|
The fall of communism in the region (including Russia) caused a shift in the Politics of the country, causing a break up of massive size, and an attempt at genocide.
I had a co-worker who was born there and immigrated here. She was not a citizen and when the break up happened she literally was a person without a country.
The First Aliyah began in 1883, and was primarily Russian Jews fleeing racism. The Russian Jews were not even dirt poor at the time. That was one reason that had no issues with leaving Russia. Their passage and lands were paid for by other Jews, which did include ultra-wealthy families like the Rothschilds, of Western Europe and the U.S.
What Sam says is correct, most settlers were exploited for political ends by Zionist "Charities". This continued in the aftemath of WWII, where Zionists were allowed by the Allies to run refugee camps, thus able to "persuade" these people to emigrate to Palestine, when that may have not been their first choice. Likewise, Ethiopians were given a seeming golden ticket to the comfortable life.
The first riots were in 1920. They were driven by a combination of political aspirations, including nascent pan-Arabism, and religious incitement.
And, you know, common knowledge that expulsion or political subjugation of non-Jews was the stated plan of the Zionists. Or the exclusionary economic practices of the Zionist settlers in Palestine. Seriously, it's not that far removed from the Puritan settlers in the English colonies, though obviously it was worse in Russia for Jews than the Puritans in England.
|
|
No, but if you sell them a cigarette and tell them that it is not dangerous and add ingredients to said cigarettes to make them more addictive and set up your advertising to make kids want to smoke and sell them "candy cigarettes" then when most of your customers die from cancer then yes you are responsible especially when most of them try to quit but find that they are addicted and unable to do so. If you farm tobacco instead of corn even though you can make enough money with the corn to get through the season then yes you...
Bad comparison using cigarettes.
The choice to kill is still theirs to make, the US never forced anyone they sold weapons to kill their neighbors, no weapons were dressed as kiddie products and no weapon ever sold was labled harmless, the choice to use them was their choice alone. The buyer could have told the US to shove it's agenda up its a$$ but no they wanted guns to kill the people they hate, the blame is all theirs.
Forced subujation can't and never will be able to maintain a peace forever, but I'm the one saying that peace between people that hate each other will never happen until one side or both are dead.
White and Black South Africans are no longer at war.
The embargo against apartheid South Africa was quite effective at curbing the power of the white regime, even though US & Western governments continued to aid them, openly or secretly, for quite some time.
Treating conflict as springing from some anonymous fount of communal hatred, rather than the result of rational choices of political entities seems a way to erase those entities' culpability and obfuscate the entire matter as beyond comprehension.
|
|
Actually, religion has very little to do with it. If you want to understand the conflict, you can't rely on the current imagery generated by main-stream media; you must look at it's historical development.
Yes, you must.
Historically, many major leaders of Palestinian resistance movements have been Christian or Atheist Communists, and in any case religion played little role in motivation: The issues were self-determination, one person-one vote, anti-colonialism and resistance to ethnic cleansing. Even Hamas, which IS a group with religious motivations, acknowledges that the Palestinian cause is not dependent on a sectarian perspective.
Historically, the first major leader of Palestinian "nationalism" was Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
While self-determination and anti-colonialism were elements, the others were not. One person-one vote was never an issue for Husayni who was promoting his own clan. Resistance to ethnic cleansing is an even greater absurdity, as it was under his direction that Hebron was ethnically cleansed of its Jewish population.Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It does not merely have religious motivations, its core purpose is religious, and their entire presentation of the Palestinian cause is as a religious one.
Equally, Zionists are glad to count as allies anti-Semitic Christian (US/European) and Muslim kooks (of Egyptian & Saudi regimes) because they cooperate with the Zionists;
The Egyptian secularists who cooperate with Israel are far from "kooks" as regards to Muslims.
The Saudis, while their Wahabbism is considered "kooky" by other Muslims, are far from cooperative with Zionists.Meanwhile, dissenting Jews who question Zionism are flatly labelled "self hating". Although there is an increasing Theocratic trend within Israel, distinct from the pseudo-ethno-nationalist mainstream ideology, Israel remains dependent on the latter: Masses of Russians/Ukrainians of questionable "Jewishness" (certainly non-religious) are accepted as citizens because they are willing to ally against the "other", i.e. Palestinians/ the non-Jew.
Jews who question zionism are not flatly labelled self hating. It is only those who demonstrate truly absurd extremes, like the Hasidim who endorse Iranian Holocaust denial, or terrorist apologists like Noam Chomsky, who are described as such.
From the start, Zionism pondered disposing of the "unwanted populace" on the land it wanted. An alternative was to retain them as second-class serfs, ala South Africa (and the predominantly Muslim peasantry of Palestine was seen as more quiescent and promising in that role than the more organized and urbanized Christians). Interestingly, even Ben-Gurion (founding leader of Israel) acknowledged that the indigenous population was just as much descendants of the ancient Jews as the "Jewish" settlers: They had simply exercised their religious freedom to convert hundreds or thousands of years ago. An interesting book by an Israeli/Jewish historian, actually explores the history of Jewish CONVERSIONS of foreign peoples in the Caucasus (Ashkenazi), Yemen & North Africa - These being the peoples who have now claimed the "right" to exclusive domain over the land of Palestine.
Really?
When did Ben-Gurion says that?What book contains this claim?
To counter the dominant narrative Israel sells, here are the first usages of terrorist acts in Palestine:
You forgot:
Rape: used exclusively by Arabs starting with the 1920 riots
Torture: used by Arabs during the 1920 riots
Destruction of religious items: used exclusively by Arabs starting with the 1920 riots
Ethnic cleansing: used exclusively by Arabs starting with Hebron in 1929
Bombs on oil pipeline: used by Arabs during the 1936-1939 revolt
Bombs on railways: used by Arabs during the 1936-1939 revolt
I guess those sort of escaped your notice.
If you're reading this, you're probably live in the USA or Great Britain (or Canada), all countries which have massively supported Israel from the very start with aid & military arms.
Not to mention being countries which have massively supported the Palestinian Authority with aid from the very start.
Oh, and actually, they have not massively supported Israel from the very start. The first country to sell arms to Israel, in violation of a UN embargo initiated by Great Britain, was Czechoslovakia.
BTW: In the middle of their barrage against the Gaza Interment Camnp, Israel has AGAIN banned the political party of Arabs with Israeli citizenship. Crime: Calling for a secular state with equality for all.
BTW: The reason for the ban is that members of those parties have been charged with denying the right of Israel to exist and having direct contacts with terrorists.
Note: Arabs have not been banned from serving in the Knesset as members of other parties, nor have Arabs been disenfranchised.Further Note: The last political parties banned in Israel were Kach and Kahane Chai, two Jewish parties banned because of charges of anti-Arab racism.
Still Further Note: The Supreme Court of Israel is not expected to uphold the ban on the Arab parties, whereas it has upheld the ban on those two Jewish parties.
Oh, and Gaza is not an internment camp. It has the government it elected for itself that chose to engage in acts of war against a neighbor.
So indeed, a look at the history of the region is important.
Start by not looking at the actual history, and not the nonsense spouted by the Palestinians and terrorists.
|
|
What Sam says is correct, most settlers were exploited for political ends by Zionist "Charities". This continued in the aftemath of WWII, where Zionists were allowed by the Allies to run refugee camps, thus able to "persuade" these people to emigrate to Palestine, when that may have not been their first choice. Likewise, Ethiopians were given a seeming golden ticket to the comfortable life.
What Quandary says is a lie, most settlers were helped by their co-religionists to escape oppression and build a new life in the lands of their ancestors.
In the aftermath of WW II the British were refusing entry of Jews into Palestine despite a humanitarian mission they set up declaring that immediate immigration of Jews from internment camps in Europe was necessary to prevent tends of thousands of deaths. When Jews managed to get boats to Israel anyway, the British diverted all they could to more internment camps in Cyprus.Ethiopian Jews, after significant internal discussion, were recognized as Jews, and the obligations towards them acknowledged. While they face many problems in Israel, they are indeed significantly better off than they were in Ethiopia.
And, you know, common knowledge that expulsion or political subjugation of non-Jews was the stated plan of the Zionists. Or the exclusionary economic practices of the Zionist settlers in Palestine. Seriously, it's not that far removed from the Puritan settlers in the English colonies, though obviously it was worse in Russia for Jews than the Puritans in England.
And you know, being caught in a lie, changing to accusations of bias hardly has any credibility.
The zionist settlers could not practice exclusionary economic practices as they had no economy of their own that could function in isolation. Indeed most early communities were dependent on hired Arab labor as remained true in Israel until the disruptions of the Intifadas caused significant changes in economic policy.
As for a comparison to the Puritans, that is utterly absurd on all levels. Indeed, the Puritans faced nothing like the pogroms of Russia. They were not forced to live in only certain areas and banned from a majority of professions. They did not have to pay a "tax" of children to serve 25 years in the army. They were not subject to attempts at forced conversion, the destruction of their churches, or random rape and murder whenever the local Anglicans got uppity.
Nor did the Jews in the region engage in the same aggressive conversions, spread plague, or sell defeated Arab tribes into slavery in the Caribbean or equivalent thereof.
|
|
White and Black South Africans are no longer at war.
The embargo against apartheid South Africa was quite effective at curbing the power of the white regime, even though US & Western governments continued to aid them, openly or secretly, for quite some time.
If embargo is such a good thing, then there can be no problem with Israel closing its border with Gaza and embargoing it until Hamas stops engaging in gratuitous rocket attacks. The people of Gaza elected Hamas just as much as the people of South Africa elected their apartheid regimes.
Treating conflict as springing from some anonymous fount of communal hatred, rather than the result of rational choices of political entities seems a way to erase those entities' culpability and obfuscate the entire matter as beyond comprehension.
Indeed.
Of course then people come along and try to obfuscate the entire matter in other ways, starting with deliberately misrepresenting history, and moving on to demanding unequal standards for the two sides involved.You should really stop doing that.
The choice to kill is still theirs to make, the US never forced anyone they sold weapons to kill their neighbors, no weapons were dressed as kiddie products and no weapon ever sold was labled harmless, the choice to use them was their choice alone. The buyer could have told the US to shove it's agenda up its a$$ but no they wanted guns to kill the people they hate, the blame is all theirs.
Weapons manufacturers should know better than anyone the lethal capabilities of their products. In making them--and they make them on a mass scale--and in selling them, those same manufacturers are complicit in the deaths caused by those weapons. It doesn't matter if they didn't pull the trigger. They made the trigger. If they hadn't made it, it could not be pulled.
Would you also suggest that someone who manufactures and pushes crack or meth is simply doing business, and not at least co-responsible with the users for the lives that are destroyed by those drugs?
*Pfffffffft*
Another beer anyone?
I say that a clear winner has yet to emerge from this fracas. More! More!
*Pfffffffft*
Another beer anyone?
"So long as you're paying."
|
|
The choice to kill is still theirs to make, the US never forced anyone they sold weapons to kill their neighbors, no weapons were dressed as kiddie products and no weapon ever sold was labled harmless, the choice to use them was their choice alone. The buyer could have told the US to shove it's agenda up its a$$ but no they wanted guns to kill the people they hate, the blame is all theirs.
Weapons manufacturers should know better than anyone the lethal capabilities of their products. In making them--and they make them on a mass scale--and in selling them, those same manufacturers are complicit in the deaths caused by those weapons. It doesn't matter if they didn't pull the trigger. They made the trigger. If they hadn't made it, it could not be pulled.
Would you also suggest that someone who manufactures and pushes crack or meth is simply doing business, and not at least co-responsible with the users for the lives that are destroyed by those drugs?
If you took away guns people would kill each other with swords take away swords and people will kill each other with rocks take away the rocks and people will kill each other with their fists. Weapons just make it easier to kill.
Focusing on weapon manufacturers (corporations) is pointless: military arms are sold or exchanged based on relations between STATES, except for the "lowest end" equipment which doesn't require highly organized and expensive means of production. Powerful states with hegemonic interests arm third party states to fight proxy wars with other powerful States: e.g. Afghan Mujahideen vs. Communist Afghanistan/USSR, USA + Client South Vietnamese regimes vs. Viet Cong aided by Russia. Treating it as a matter of moral negligence, rather than the outcome of state policy is absurd as ignoring it in the first place. Handgun manufacturers or Cigarette Manufacturs may be morally negligent, but they do not target their harmful products to be used against their enemies, they just seek as much profit as possible.
Handgun manufacturers or Cigarette Manufacturs may be morally negligent, but they do not target their harmful products to be used against their enemies, they just seek as much profit as possible.
Which is sick, and wrong, of itself.
If you took away guns people would kill each other with swords take away swords and people will kill each other with rocks take away the rocks and people will kill each other with their fists. Weapons just make it easier to kill.
That may be true. At least then the sides would be fighting with commensurate weapons. The situation as it stands now is that one side shoots bottle rockets and improvised projectiles while the other is supplied with the deadliest range weapons of mass destruction that have ever been produced anywhere, at any time.